advantages of single sex education essay

Student Loans

Grants & Programs

Laws & Guidance

Data & Research

• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility
• Information quality
• Inspector General
• Whitehouse.gov
• Benefits.gov
• Regulations.gov

Stanford Economic Review

Stanford's Only Undergraduate Economics Publication

BLOG: The Impact of Single-Sex Education on Educational and Personal Outcomes

By Caitlin McCarey. Wellesley College

This review assesses the impact of single-sex education programs on educational and personal outcomes of lower, middle, and high school aged students. This discussion is guided by two research questions, grounded within an economic framework. First, are single-sex education programs more beneficial for students than co-educational (co-ed) programs? Second, are the effects of single-sex education programs heterogeneous for different groups (boys vs. girls, majority vs. minority students, and high vs. low income students)? Quality randomized controlled trials have only recently been utilized to answer these questions. The review concludes that single-sex schools range from “equally as effective” to “more effective” than co-ed schools along measures of students’ personal and academic outcomes. Therefore, we recommend a program of increased school choice where families can choose between single-sex and co-ed schools.

Advocates of single-sex education trumpet the many benefits of learning in a single-sex environment: girls become more confident in their abilities, boys embrace their emotions, classroom disruptions are reduced, and educational outcomes are increased for everyone (Hayes et. al., 2001; Hughes, 2007). Opponents of single-sex education, however, claim that segregating the sexes vindicates pseudoscience and will be outright harmful because it encourages hyper-sexuality and reinforces the gender binary (Eliot, 2007; Halpern et. al., 2011; Goodkind, 2012). Until recently, the dearth of high quality randomized controlled trials allowed the propagation of misinformation regarding single-sex education.

This paper will examine two meta-analyses that conducted a review of the single-sex education literature within the past decade. Very recent studies, including randomized controlled trials in Korea and random experiments in the UK, will then be described and analyzed to address holes in these meta-analyses. Overall, this paper will conclude that while approximately two-thirds of studies find no difference between single-sex and co-ed schools, approximately one-third of studies find advantages to attending a single-sex school. To my knowledge, no studies have found that single-sex schools harm students or that co-ed schools benefit students. The literature includes studies on all-boys and all-girls environments in lower, middle, and high schools.

This literature review will proceed in several steps. First, I will describe the importance of researching single-sex schools. Second, I will describe the economic theory behind the general equilibrium that arises after the introduction of single-sex schools to a school district. This discussion yields the following two research questions: (1) Are single-sex education programs more beneficial for students than co-educational programs? (2) Are the effects of single-sex programs heterogeneous for different groups (boys vs. girls, majority vs. minority students, and high vs. low-income students)? Third, I will provide an overview of the empirical evidence of these policy questions. Fourth, I will examine the causal mechanisms that may have lead to these results. Fifth, I will assess the external validity of the studies discussed in the third section. Sixth, I will briefly discuss the cost-effectiveness of single-sex education programs. Finally, I will provide recommendations for future experiments and conclude by answering the research questions.

Section One: The Importance of Single-Sex Education

It has been shown that girls and boys enter kindergarten with the same aptitudes and same abilities in all subjects—including science and math. However, over the six years of elementary school, girls lose two-tenths of one standard deviation in test scores relative to their male peers (Fryer & Levitt, 2009). This is half of the black-white test score gap over the same period (Fryer & Levitt, 2009). If social conditioning or societal attitudes about gender roles are holding girls back in the classroom, single-sex schools may present a solution. After all, an individual’s education level impacts her likelihood of attending college, and choice of major and success in college will influence her choice of career and future earnings. There is great inequity in the workplace. The gender wage gap persists across all industries, and men are still much more likely than women to earn a degree in business and STEM.

Therefore, increasing women’s educational achievement is a key goal for the United States and the world. Higher levels of education have been linked with a plethora of desirable characteristics, such as lower infant mortality rates, lower teen birth rates, higher levels of economic output, higher wages, and greater gender equality. Especially in countries were co-ed schooling is culturally or religiously undesirable, single-sex schools may provide the solution to increasing overall education levels for girls and women. If single-sex schools increase girls’ competitiveness and confidence levels in their abilities, single-sex schools may contribute to the reduction of both the achievement-gap and the gender wage gap in Westernized countries like the United States.

After the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was modified by Congress in 2006, single-sex schools were no longer considered a violation of Title IX. This led to a 4,400% increase in the number of single-sex classrooms in the United States by 2010 (Booth et. al., 2013). It is important for U.S. policymakers to study single-sex environments (both single-sex classes and single-sex schools) as more and more students are opting to learn in them. Currently in the US, single-sex schools are seen as the purview of the wealthy or the religious, but this may change as more and more studies on the benefits of single-sex schools are released. In order to stay on top of these trends and to ensure the best educational programs for its students, the U.S. must study these programs rigorously.

Section Two: Economic Theory and Intuition

It is not clear how the addition of single-sex classrooms or single-sex schools would affect education production in a general equilibrium. This is because single-sex education is not universally desired. There are many families who, due to misinformation or personal reasons, may not want their children to attend a single-sex school. For example, while many families view single-sex schools as empowering and cutting-edge, an equal or larger number may view them as outdated anachronisms of a more sexist American educational system. Additionally, if single-sex schools are private or religious schools—as they overwhelmingly are in the U.S.—families could have additional reasons to select or not select into a single-sex school. These reasons could include both location and income constraints. Therefore, while the addition of a single-sex school to a school district may be most analogous to the addition of a private school in terms of the general equilibrium effects, we cannot be certain this is an accurate comparison.

Let us proceed with the assumption that families prefer single-sex schools is over co-ed schools. This means, if a single-sex school enters a school district, most families would prefer to send their children to the single-sex school instead of the public co-ed schools. Under this assumption, the entrance of a single-sex school to a school district will function as an exogenous shock on the education system. The equilibrium result could be increased competition as the public schools attempt to compete with the single-sex school. This could lead to an increase in the resources and average test scores in the public schools, improving the delivery of education services. However, there could also be public school decay as the smartest, wealthiest students leave the public school system to attend the single-sex school.

Moreover, the addition of a new school would drive up the demand for teachers, leading either to a salary increase or the departure of the best teachers from the lower-paying sector to the higher-paying sector (the higher-paying school will often be the co-ed public school). The effect could be reversed, however, if teachers prefer teaching in single-sex environments or if the single-sex school is associated with smaller class sizes, brighter students, wealthier parents, a certain racial composition, or other characteristics upon which teachers make their educational decisions.

If the single-sex school will only accept boys or only accept girls, this could lead to a gender imbalance in the public schools. If having more girls in a classroom is beneficial for all students and having more boys is detrimental, there could be additional effects on the students in the public school. Finally, if families prefer single-sex schools to co-ed schools, families who derive higher utility from sending their children to such schools could move into the school district. This could drive home prices higher, which could benefit the public school system if they are funded mainly from property taxes. It is unlikely families would flee the district if they did not have a preference for single-sex schooling. Therefore, there could be important general equilibrium concerns for school districts contemplating the addition of a single-sex school.

Section Three: Causal Evidence

It is difficult to quantify the effects of single-sex classrooms and single-sex schools for several reasons. First, students self select into these environments. That is, students with nonrandom characteristics are more likely to choose to attend single-sex schools. Family characteristics like income or religion could affect this choice along the extensive margin (insofar as many single-sex schools are Catholic schools or private schools), while the student’s personal characteristics and abilities could affect the decision along the intensive margin. Additionally, single-sex schools are overwhelmingly private schools.

The effects of learning in a private school (which traditionally has smaller class sizes and more resources than public schools) may obscure the true effect of learning in a single-sex environment. It is difficult to tease out these two effects. Therefore, the studies with the highest internal validity will involve randomized controlled experiments that capitalize on situations where students are randomly assigned to single-sex vs. co-ed schools or classrooms, or where curricula, teachers, and resources are fixed across classrooms and schools. Several studies meet these criteria; they will be discussed late in this section. But first, the results of two meta-analyses will be examined to provide an overview of the single-sex schooling landscape.

The first meta-analysis I will review was conducted by economists Erin Pahlke, Janet Shibley and Carlie Allison (2014). They analyzed data from over 180 studies conducted in 21 nations on the effects of single-sex schooling on academic outcomes and student characteristics (such as confidence, competitiveness, etc). In order for a study to be included in their meta-analysis, it had to 1) contain quantitative data on student outcomes, 2) assess K-12 schooling, 3) measure personal or academic outcomes, 4) include separate treatment and control groups (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014). Out of almost 2,500 studies regarding single-sex education, only 184 studies found to meet these criteria.

These 184 studies were then labeled as “controlled” or “uncontrolled” studies. A controlled study used random assignment of students to single-sex or co-ed classes/schools or controlled for family characteristics like socio-economic status. Uncontrolled studies had no controls for selection effects. Therefore, the controlled studies possess the strongest research methods. Table 1 is a visual representation of the results obtained by the 57 controlled studies; it is modified from a table of all 184 studies in Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison (2014).   

Pahlke et al. (2014) separated the results of their meta-analysis by effect category (i.e. academic outcomes, personal outcomes, and so on), so that is how I will proceed in my review. Due to their weaker research design, uncontrolled studies will not be examined here. The results presented here are average weighted effects, which gives greater weight to studies with larger sample sizes. First, the authors examine the effects of single-sex education on students’ math scores. The overall effect of single-sex education on students’ math scores was positive but very small (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014). There were larger effects for male students than for female students, but because the positive estimates are both so small, the authors conclude there is a negligible effect of single-sex schooling on student math scores. There was some inter-group heterogeneity: girls in middle school derived modest improvements in math scores from placement in single-sex environments (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014).

Next, the authors examine the effect of single-sex classes and schools on students’ mathematics attitudes, concluding that there is no effect for either male or female students (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014). There was no weighted effect of single-sex schooling on students’ performance in science, and there were not sufficient studies to conduct an analysis on the change in students’ scientific attitudes. The effects of single-sex schooling on verbal performance were also close to zero (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014). In terms of general school achievement, the difference in female achievement was small but positive; there were not enough studies to measure the effects on male students (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014).

Additionally, there were not enough studies to determine the effects on students’ attitudes towards general education. The weighted effect of single-sex on gender attitudes, however, implied that female students in co-ed schools were much more likely to endorse gender stereotypes than single-sex cohorts. However, the authors urge caution in interpreting this effect due to variance between the weighted and unweighted effects. There were insufficient studies to measure the effects of single-sex on male stereotypes. There was no difference in student aspirations across single-sex and co-ed schools.

Overall, the authors conclude that there are only trivial advantages to attending a single-sex school versus a co-ed school along important measures like student achievement and student attitudes (Pahlke, Shibley, & Allison, 2014). The authors attribute this dissonance between the perceptions of single-sex schooling benefits and these studies to the dearth of rigorous study design. They posit that many studies do not control for selection effects and student characteristics, which biases public opinion regarding the results. Additionally, the authors conclude that there are not heterogeneous affects by gender, socio-economic status, or age. These results contradict studies that have found large positive effects of single-sex schooling for younger girls. Therefore, they conclude that there is no evidence that single-sex schools offer educational and personal advantages to either male or female students.

A second meta-analysis was conducted by Fred Mael, et al. (2005) at the behest of the Department of Education. This study uses the evaluation standards of the Campbell Collaboration (CC) and the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to evaluate studies on the effects of single-sex education. Overall, they state their results are equivocal—there is no evidence of either benefit or harm from attending a single-sex school. To be included in this meta-analysis, the studies had to involve students enrolled full-time in elementary, middle, or high schools in Westernized or English-speaking countries. As with Pahlke’s meta-analysis, no studies involving college students were included. The condition on Westernized countries was added to ensure the results were applicable to the U.S. education sector.

When the strict guidelines of the WWC were applied to the single-sex education literature—that is, that all studies other than randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs with matching, or regression discontinuity designs be excluded—no studies remained for analysis. Therefore, Mael et al. modified the WWC standards and included all correlational studies utilizing robust statistical controls for student ability, family SES, and school resources (Mael et al., 2005). There were 40 quantitative studies that met the modified criteria. As Mael’s meta-analysis was published before Pahlke’s, all of the 40 studies examined by Mael are included in Table 1, which is based off of a summary table appearing in Pahlke et. al. (2014). Mael’s results are either pro-single-sex schools or show no difference between outcomes among graduates of single-sex and co-ed schools.

The results of Mael et al.’s study are organized along several classifications. First, they state that most studies report either positive effects or no effects of single-sex schools on students’ academic achievement. Specifically, of studies that examined students’ performance on mathematics, science, English, and social sciences tests, roughly a third found that students in single-sex environments outperformed students in co-ed environments (Mael et al., 2005). The remaining two-thirds of studies found no difference in academic performance. These results argue moderately in favor of single sex schools. Next, the authors state that long-term measures of student success (such as college attendance or graduation rates) cannot be directly attributable to single-sex schools. Recent research conducted in Korea has found positive effects of single-sex schools on college attendance (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b). These studies will be discussed later.

The next category of results that Mael et al. analyze involves student socioemotional development. Overall, the results are mixed. Interestingly, a third of studies regarding self-esteem found positive effects for co-ed schools, while the remainder showed no preference. These positive effects were only for male students. Additionally, the authors state that a majority of studies found that single-sex schools had a positive effect on the higher educational aspirations of female students. There were positive effects on career aspirations for boys at single-sex schools, but not for educational aspirations (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b). The authors write that there were not enough studies to issue blanket statements regarding the effects of single-sex schools on overall gender inequity, school climate, unemployment, graduation rates, mental health, or parent and student satisfaction. Overall, Mael et al. agree with Pahlke et al. that there is a dearth of quality, randomized studies with robust statistical controls (Mael et al., 2005).

Since the publication of these two meta-analyses, several studies with more rigorous experimental designs have been written. These have studied the effects of random assignment of students in metropolitan areas to co-ed or single-sex middle and high schools in South Korea (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012a; Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b; Lee, Niederle, & Kang 2014a; Lee, et. al, 2014b) or the random assignment of students to co-ed vs. single-sex classrooms within co-ed universities (Booth, 2013; Booth and Nolen, 2012; Eisenkopf, 2014). While many of these studies found positive effects of single-sex schooling, a non-inconsequential number found no difference between single-sex and co-ed schools. However, based on our prior analysis of the Pahlke and Mael meta-analyses, this is not surprising. These studies will be examined below.

The Korean studies take advantage of a random assignment program that was implemented in 1974 and occurs in Seoul and the six largest metropolitan centers in Korea. Students are randomly assigned via a lottery system to either co-ed or single-sex middle and high schools within their district; almost 75% of Korean high school students attend schools that are included in the lottery system (the remaining 25% attend vocational high schools). Importantly, both public and private schools partake in this lottery system and cannot reject the students assigned to them.

While non-compliance in such a program would traditionally be a key concern, Park et a. argue the potential bias from non-compliance and attrition are minimal. This is because the only way for students to transfer to another school is to move to a new school district. In this new district, students would be reassigned to a new school based on the same random lottery, thereby minimizing or negating the benefits of moving in the first place. Additionally, Park et al. showed that only a very small number of households do move during the relevant timing of high school, indicating that non-compliance is not biasing the estimates (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012a).

The Korean studies measure the effect of single-sex schools on student test scores, college entrance exam scores, rates of college attendance, choice of college major and career, and student competitiveness. Park, Behrman, and Choi conclude that attending a single-sex high school is associated with higher average scores on Korean and English tests, higher rates of four-year college attendance, and lower rates of two-year college attendance for both male and female students (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b). The increases in test scores are large (7% to 15% of one standard deviation), although not all are statistically significant.

Park, Behrman, & Choi (2012b) also found that male and female students at single-sex schools are more likely to attend four year colleges, and less likely to attend two year colleges, than co-ed cohorts. The differences in college attendance are quite substantial—.5 standard deviations for girls and .8 standard deviations for boys (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b). These results are robust to controls for school-level variables such as teacher quality, the student-teacher ratio, and the proportion of students receiving lunch support, and whether the single-sex schools are public or private (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b).

In a second study of the Korean high schools, Park, Behrman, and Choi obtain additional administrative data and longitudinal survey data on students’ college entrance exam math scores and choice of a STEM college major two years after enrolling in college. Park et al. found that both male and female students attending single-sex schools outperformed their co-ed counterparts on national standardized math tests. The positive effects of attending a single-sex high school were quite large (ranging from 7% to 25% of one standard deviation, and were larger for boys than for girls. Interestingly, despite the higher math test scores, female students at single-sex high schools were no more likely to major in STEM in college than female students from co-ed high schools. However, boys from single-sex high schools were both more likely to choose a STEM major and more likely to report a high interest in STEM subjects. These patterns held in both Seoul and non-Seoul schools.

There are several internal validity concerns that arise in studies that measure the effects of single-sex schools in Korea. First, after concerns arose over lack of school choice, some districts outside the capital modified the random lottery to allow students to list two or three schools are their “preferred” choice. In each non-Seoul school, 30-40% of their enrolled students were randomly selected from the students who had labeled that school one of their preferred schools, while the remaining 60-70% of students were determined completely at random (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012a). Due to this policy modification, some of the students in each school are able to self-select into that school. This introduces selection bias that may prejudice the results. However, after comparing the characteristics of the Seoul and non-Seoul cohorts, Park et al. found that students at single-sex schools and co-ed schools had similar levels of academic achievement socio-economic backgrounds.

A second internal validity concern for the Korean studies is that public and private school teachers are subject to different licensing requirements and recruitment incentives. For example, public school teachers have to take additional teaching exams and are subject to school rotations every 4-5 years. As Park et al., states, this may lead to differences in teacher-related characteristics across public and private schools. Finally, the majority of single-sex schools in Korea are private, while most of the co-ed schools are public. This means that in addition to varying along the lines of gender composition, single-sex schools and co-ed schools could also vary along other important characteristics such as teacher quality or characteristics.

Other Korean studies have taken advantage of the random assignment of middle school students to co-ed middle schools, co-ed middle schools with single-sex classrooms, or single-sex schools (Lee et al, 2014; Lee, Niederle, & Kang, 2014). Middle school students in Korea are assigned to their schools based on a similarly random procedure as governs high school assignment, except no middle school students can submit school preferences. Compliance is high, because the only way to change to another school is to move to another school district and re-enter that district’s school lottery. These studies aim to counteract some of the biases that may be influencing the high school studies. These studies have high internal validity because students are assigned to classrooms in a process that equalizes prior academic achievement, and there is strict adherence to a nationally designed curriculum. Additionally, all schools receive equal funding, which removes concerns over differences in resources.

Lee et al. (2014) conclude that male students attending single-sex schools outperform male students in co-ed classes by .15 standard deviations. They state that this improvement was driven by increases in male students’ effort and time spent studying. Interestingly, male students in single-sex classes within co-ed schools perform .10 standard deviations below male students in co-ed classes. Lee et al. concludes that this achievement gap between boys in co-ed schools but single-sex classrooms and boys in co-ed schools and co-ed classrooms is due to the change in gender composition. There were no differences in test scores across the female students in co-ed vs. single-sex classes. They offer no explanation for this result.

A final study uses the random assignment of Korean students to middle schools to measure the effect of the gender composition of classrooms on students’ willingness to participate in competitive activities. Lee, Niederle, and Kang (2014) conclude that, contrary to popular belief, the gender gap in competitiveness is not reduced by single-sex schooling. This result is robust to controls for student achievement and parent characteristics. To measure competitiveness, the authors created various competitions where students competed against each other to solve arithmetic problems. While there are no differences in student performance on the tasks, female students from single-sex schools are 15 percentage points less likely to opt into a tournament-style (i.e. highly competitive) game than are boys in co-ed schools (Lee, Niederle, & Kang, 2014). Girls in co-ed middle schools are only 8 percentage points less likely to choose to compete in the tournament (Lee, Niederle, & Kang, 2014). Several randomized experiments conducted at a University in the United Kingdom disagree with this conclusion.

Additional studies have conducted randomized experiments on students at co-ed universities. Booth et al (2013) designed an experiment where all first year economics students at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom were sorted into either single-sex or co-ed discussion sessions for their ECON 101 classes. The classes were year-long and taught for two hours every week by one professor in a lecture hall, supplemented by one hour of instruction per week taught by teaching assistants (TA). Students were randomly assigned to co-ed, all-boy, or all-girl TA classes. The co-ed and single-sex classes were the same on almost all observable characteristics, and there was no attrition because students were not allowed to switch classes.

Booth et al. found that female students in the single-sex classes were 7.5% more likely to pass their first year courses and scored 10% higher in their required second year economics courses than their female peers assigned to the co-ed class. Additionally, women in single-sex classes were 9.3 percentage points more likely to complete optional homework assignments and nearly 6 percentage points more likely to attend classes. However, women in the single-sex classes were no more likely to take technical classes (econometrics or advanced math courses) in later years than their counterparts. There was no affect on the passage rates or test scores of male economics students.

A second study conducted concomitantly by Booth et al. (2013) with the students at Essex University included an experiment designed to test students’ risk tolerance. They administered tests to all economics students in the first week and the eighth week of class. While female students were more risk averse than male students at both times, female students in the single-sex TA-classes were significantly more likely to exhibit risk-seeking behavior in the 8 th week than female students in the co-ed TA-classes. The magnitude of this effect was substantial. There was no change in risk aversion for male students. These results were robust to the inclusion of controls for IQ, academic ability, and personal characteristics. A second but comparable study by Booth and Nolen (2012) found that middle school girls who attended public single-sex schools exhibited similar levels risk tolerance to boys from co-ed schools in controlled experiments. Both of these studies disagree with the results of Lee, Niederle, & Kang (2014) that attending single-sex schools does not affect the competitiveness of female students.

Section Four: Evidence on Causal Mechanisms

In order to design the most effective education policy, it is imperative that we understand why single-sex schools might produce different outcomes than co-ed schools. A plethora of possible mechanisms have been discussed in the literature. These mechanisms include: 1) tracking; 2) peer effects; 3) decreased distractions during class; 4) increased number of same gender role models; 5) differences in curriculum/classroom organization; 6) differences in funding/resources; 7) reduction in stereotype threat. Each of these mechanisms will be discussed, although the relative weight and importance of each mechanism cannot be determined due to the difficulty of separating their effects.

The first explanation for why single-sex schools could effect improvement along academic dimensions is the model of student tracking. This model posits the idea that students will perform better if they are surrounded by peers with similar academic abilities. For example, Duflo et. al. (2011) found that sorting students into elementary school classes based on ability caused both high-achieving and low-achieving students to perform better on end of the year tests. If students have similar abilities—say, in an honors class where all students are above average—the teacher will be able to teach to the median level of achievement, which will be a satisfactory level for the majority of students. In a class with a large distribution of academic achievement may lead teachers to teach to the right tail of the achievement distribution. If teachers are advancing through the material too quickly for the majority of students in the class, the removal of the top students may allow the teacher to slow down, and therefore teach at a more appropriate level.

If female students are less likely to be in the right tail, isolating students by gender may reduce the variance in female student achievement and allow a tracking mechanism to improve student scores. Alternately, if female students are more likely to be the top performers in a class, removing male students may allow the pace of an all-female class to accelerate. However, Booth et. al (2013) reject tracking as the mechanism through which single-sex schools benefit students. They demonstrate that both the distribution and standard deviation of ability are the same for both female-only and male-only classes. That is, both male and female students have similar ability distributions. This implies there will be no tracking by ability if one segregates classes based on gender. Therefore, it seems unlikely that tracking is the cause of the benefits of single-sex schooling.

A second mechanism through which single-sex schools could benefit students is peer effects. Peer effects include any way in which a student’s classmates affect his or her behavior, such as through peer instruction, knowledge spillovers, influence on classroom standards and disciplinary behaviors, and overall classroom environment (Hoxby, 2000). Often it is very difficult to isolate various peer effects. There are some ideas how peer effects could be exerting influence on students in single-sex environments. First, it is traditionally stated that students in single-sex environments care less about superficial qualities like looks or popularity and spend more time focusing on schoolwork.

Lee et. al. found that female Korean middle school students in single-sex schools were more likely to report that their peers worked hard than female students in single-sex classes within co-ed schools, and that male students at single-sex schools spent more time studying than male students at co-ed schools (Lee et. al., 2014, Park et. al., 2012b). There could also be peer effects from increasing the number of female students in a class. Several studies have found that both male and female students perform better as the fraction of female students rises (Lavy and Schlosser, 2011; Hoxby, 2000) and that female students complete more optional assignments when assigned to single-sex classes (Booth et. al., 2013). Therefore, it seems that peer effects could be one potential mechanism through which single-sex increase student outcomes.

A third mechanism explaining these benefits could be that female students in single-sex environments may be subject to fewer distractions, disturbances, interruptions, or violent episodes than female students in co-ed classes. This could be because young boys are socialized to respond differently in academic environments, or because of genetic differences in boys’ brain chemistry. Whatever the cause, several studies have found that decreasing the number of boys in a classroom increases both boys’ and girls’ achievement. For example, when Lavy and Schlosser (2011) concluded that increasing the fraction of female students in a classroom raised overall academic performance of all students, they concluded that the mechanism through which this effect operated was a reduction in classroom disruption and violence, and not due to spillover effects (Lavy and Schlosser, 2011). They found no change in individual students’ behavior, implying that the positive effects operated through a compositional change, i.e. gender peer effects. Hughes (2007) also found that the gains from single-sex schooling come in part from decreased classroom disturbances and greater equity of opportunity for female students.

A fourth mechanism could be the increased presence of same-gender role models at single-sex schools. It has been shown that single-sex schools employ a greater number of same-sex teachers—all-boys schools employ more male teachers than co-ed schools, while all-girls schools employ more female teachers (Riordan, 1990). Studies have shown that female high school students achieve higher levels of schooling if their co-ed high schools have a higher fraction of female professional staff. If students learn more effectively and efficiently from teachers of their own gender, as has been posited, this effect could be one of the reasons for increased performance at single-sex schools.

While the economics of education literature has shown that minority students perform better with a minority teacher (Dee, 2004), the results are less conclusive regarding gender. For example, Park et. al. (2012b) proposed that one of the explanations for the vast gains in English and Korean test scores experienced by both boys and girls in single-sex schools could be attributed to the higher numbers of same-sex teachers. They cite research that shows higher fraction of female teachers could counteract research that shows that boys receive higher levels of encouragement and reinforcement, especially in math and sciences, than female students (Park et. al., 2012b). However, Lee et. al. (2012) concluded that while single-sex schools were better for both male and female students, this effect was not driven by the gender composition of the schools. More research must be conducted on this subject.

I will combine the discussion of the next two mechanisms, differences in classroom organization and funding levels, because they are so interrelated. In the US, most single-sex schools are private schools, and most co-ed schools are public schools. Therefore, it is very important to ensure the results of studies that purport to show the effects of single-sex schools are not mistakenly reporting the effects of being in a private school. Studies that were conducted in Korea, where students are randomly assigned to either single-sex or co-ed middle and high schools, provides guidance in this area. Importantly, all schools in Korea are designed around a strict national curriculum where there are very few opportunities for teachers to modify lessons or teaching methods. Second, schools in Korea are funded through a centralized process, so there are not the vast funding disparities that exist in the U.S. Because these studies found substantial benefits of attending single-sex schools holding these characteristics constant, it appears that the benefits of single-sex schools do not operate through differences in classroom organization or funding levels (Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012a; Park, Behrman, & Choi, 2012b; Lee, Niederle, & Kang 2014a; Lee, et. al, 2014b).

Finally, the abolition of “stereotype threat” could explain the benefits of single-sex classrooms and schools, especially for female students. Stereotype threat occurs when a student intentionally restricts or modifies their participation in classroom activities to avoid making mistakes that would cause the student to fulfill negative stereotypes about their race, gender, age, etc. For example, female students in math or science classes may ask fewer questions in order to avoid giving the impression that they do not understand the material, because it is a stereotype that girls perform more poorly in math and science classes. Steele, Spencer, & Aronson (2002) found that girls reported more self-confidence in their math abilities after learning math in a single-sex classroom. However, it is extremely difficult to devise an empirical experiment or test that could ascertain whether the abolition of stereotype threat improves female students’ performance. It is also unclear whether single-sex schools for male students would be subject similar mechanisms.

Section Five: External Validity

As I have discussed throughout this paper, self-selection is the greatest threat to both the internal and external validity of studies involving single sex schools. While this bias can be mitigated or even removed through robust experiment design, these sorts of experiments have been few and far between to date. In general, if a study does not control for various school-level and student-level characteristics, we can state with confidence their results are heavily biased by self-selection and student family characteristics. These studies will not be useful as we craft policies regarding single-sex vs. co-ed education.

However, there are several other factors that may affect the external validity of the studies within the single-sex education literature. First, there are the inherent differences across the education systems in non-Western vs. Western countries that make comparisons difficult. In Korea, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ireland, single-sex schools are much more common than they are in the US. Single-sex schools in these districts are not subject to increased participation due to their novelty. There are also many differences between these school districts and school districts in the US that makes the application of the results of these studies potentially dubious. For example, differences in teacher training requirements and payment structures may affect the quality of teacher candidates, as well as the methods they use in their classrooms. Finally, none of these countries have the racial tension that exists between minority and majority students in the U.S., so we cannot know for certain how the results of foreign studies would apply to White vs. Black/Latino/Asian students.

Additionally, due to the challenge of conducting randomized experiments with single-sex environments, many of the studies that exist draw on smaller sample sizes. Unlike other fields of economics that can use census data or state-level data, the economics of education literature (and especially single-sex education literature) lack such large-scale, long-term studies. There is as yet no “Tennessee STAR Experiment” for single-sex schools. If the sample sizes of single-sex school studies are not large enough to be representative of the population from which they attempt to sample, the results will be subject to higher variability and error. In the worst-case scenario, the positive effects of single-sex schooling could actually be due to an extremely talented cohort of students.

Finally, many of the studies examining single-sex literature have examined a variety of ways in which these environments may improve student outcomes—from academic to personal outcomes. As there are differing levels of robustness within these experiments, it can be hard to compare studies that also differ in their definition of a successful program. For example, if single-sex classrooms don’t improve student performance but increase girls’ self-confidence, are they still worth it? Additional challenges arise when we attempt to rank or otherwise choose amongst these outcomes: is self-confidence more important than GPA? Are test score increases more powerful than a decrease in classroom distractions? There is no right answer to these questions, but how we choose to answer them will have vast consequences on the studies we conduct and the policies we implement.

Section Six: Cost effectiveness

One of the greatest potential benefits of implementing single-sex education in the US would be its cost: free. No new resources would need to be provided in order to transition co-ed environments to single-sex environments. All we would need to do is reshuffle students into single-sex classrooms within co-ed schools or reassign them to single-sex schools within their school districts. The benefits of single-sex schooling appear even more substantial given the lack of capital required. Other popular educational programs—such as reducing class sizes, improving student-teacher ratios, or implementing improved teacher training programs—would require a substantial upfront and prolonged investment.

Section Seven: Recommendations for Research

As was highlighted in both of the meta-analyses, there is a dearth of rigorous, randomized controlled trials with robust statistical controls that test the effects of single-sex education. In a perfect (hypothetical) world, I would want to design an experiment that utilized random assignment and controlled for selection effects. The experiment would take place on a large scale—perhaps across several states—and occur in the U.S. to maximize its applicability to U.S. education policy. I would want to compare students across various parts of the country, perhaps in New York, Chicago, Florida, Texas, and California, to ensure the results weren’t specific to just one state or one school district. All of the students would be randomly assigned to a treatment (single-sex school) or a control (co-ed school) group.

The treatment group would be split into several further groups: students assigned to single-sex schools from kindergarten-onwards, students assigned to single-sex schools from middle school onwards, and students assigned to single-sex schools from high school onwards. Not only would this allow us to measure the effects of single-sex schools for various age cohorts, but it would also allow us to determine if the duration of exposure to the treatment affected students’ personal characteristics and educational outcomes. Of course, we would make sure all of the groups were balanced across both student characteristics (such as prior academic achievement and personal characteristics) and family characteristics (SES, educational attainment of parents, number of siblings, birth order, neighborhood characteristics). The curriculum and funding levels of all of the schools would be standardized at the national level, as in the Korean studies. A study of this nature would greatly enrich the single-sex schooling literature.

I will conclude by returning to the two research questions asked at the beginning of this literature review: (1) Are single-sex education programs more beneficial for students than co-educational programs? (2) Are the effects of single-sex programs heterogeneous for different groups (boys vs. girls, majority vs. minority students, and high vs. low-income students)? To answer the first question, most studies find no difference between the outcomes of students in single-sex schools and co-ed schools, while some studies find results that favor single-sex schools. No studies have found any negative effects of single-sex education on students.

Due to the paucity of literature addressing the heterogeneous effects of single-sex schools, it is difficult to answer the second question. We cannot conclude that single-sex schools are more or less beneficial for minority vs. majority students or high vs. low-income students because very few studies have attempted to separate out the effects for these groups. However, we can state that while both boys and girls appear to benefit from single-sex schooling, girls may benefit more along academic and personal measures than boys.

These results could be due to peer effects, decreases in classroom distractions, increases in female role models, or the abolition of stereotype threat. It is unlikely that the benefits of single-sex schools are due to tracking, differences in classroom organization, or school funding levels. Overall, I recommend a policy of increased school choice where parents may decide whether to send their children to a single-sex school or a co-ed school.

Booth, Allison, and Patrick Nolen. 2012. “Choosing to Compete: How Different are Girls and Boys?” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81: 542-555.

Booth, Allison, Linda Cardona-Sosa, and Patrick Nolen. 2013. “Do Single-Sex Classes Affect Achievement? A Study in a Coeducational University.” Borradores de Economía Núm. 787: 1-23.

Booth, Allison, Linda Cardona-Sosa, and Patrick Nolen. 2014. “Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do single-sex environments affect their development?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 99: 126-154.

Brown, Charles, and Mary Corcoran. 1996. “Sex-Based Differences in School Content and the Male/Female Wage Gap.” Working Paper 5580. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dee, Thomas. 2005. “Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement.” Working Paper 11660. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dee, Thomas. 2004. “Teachers, Race, and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 195-210.

Eisenkopf, Gerald, Zohal Hessami, Urs Fischbacher, and Heinrich Ursprung. 2015. “Academic Performance and Single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 115: 123-143.

Eliot, Lise. 2013. “Single-Sex Education and the Brain.” The University of Chicago Medical School. Sex Roles 69: 363-381.

Fryer, Roland, and Steven Levitt. 2009. “An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap in Mathematics.” Working Paper 15430. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gneezy, Uri, Kenneth Leonard, and John List. 2009. “Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society.” Econometrica Vol. 77: 1637-1664.

Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence Katz. 2010. “Putting the Co in Education: Timing, Reasons, and Consequences of College Coeducation from 1835 to the Present.” Working Paper 16281. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Goodkind, Sara. 2012. “Single-sex Public Education for Low-Income Youth of Color: A Critical Theoretical Review.” Sex Roles 69: 393-402.

Halpern, Diane, et. al. 2011. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling.” Science 333: 1706-1707.

Hayes, Amy, Erin Pahkle, and Rebecca Bigler. 2011. “The Efficiacy of Single-Sex Education: Testing for Selection and Peer Quality Effects.” Sex Roles 65: 693-703.

Hoxby, Caroline. 2000. “Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race Variation.” Working Paper 7867. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hughes, Teresa. 2007. “The Advantages of Single-Sex Education.” National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision 23: 5-15.

Jackson, C. Kirabo. 2011. “Single-Sex Schools, Student Achievement, and Course Selection: Evidence from Rule-Based Student Assignments in Trinidad and Tobago.” Working Paper 16817. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Jimenez, Emmanuel, and Marlaine Lockheed. 1989. “Enhancing Girls’ Learning Through Single-Sex Education: Evidence and a Policy Conundrum.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11: 117-142.

Lavy, Victor, and Analía Schlosser. 2011. “Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 1-33.

Lee, Soohyung, et. al. 2014. “All or Nothing? The Impact of School and Classroom Gender Composition on Effort and Academic Achievement.” Working Paper 20722. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Lee, Soohyung, Muriel Niederle, and Namwook Kang. 2014. “Do Single-sex schools make girls more competitive?” Economics Letters 124: 474-477.

Mael, Fred, et. al. 2005. “Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review.” U.S. Department of Education. Doc #2005-01.

Pahkle, Erin, Janet Shibley Hyde, and Carlie M. Alison. 2014. “The Effects of Single-Sex Compared with Coeducational Schooling on Students’ Performance and Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis.” American Psychological Review 140: 1042-1072.

Park, Hyunjoon, Jere Behrman, and Jaesung Choi. 2013. “Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools.” Demography 50: 447-469.

Park, Hyunjoon, Jere Behrman, and Jaesung Choi. 2012. “Do Single-Sex Schools Enhance Students’ STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Outcomes?” Working Paper 12-038. Philadelphia: Penn Institute of Economic Research.

Schneeweis, Nicole, and Martina Zweimuller. 2011. “Girls, Girls, Girls: Gender Composition and Female School Choice.” Economics of Education Review 31: 482-500.

Steele, Claude, Steven Spencer, and Joshua Aronson. 2002. “Contending with Group Image: The Psychology of Stereotype and Social Identity Threat.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 34: 379-440.

Yalcinkaya, M. Talha, and Alyse Ulu. 2012. “Differences between single-sex schools and coeducational schools.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46: 13-16.

Share this:

Discover more from stanford economic review.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Theory of Art
• Browse content in History
• Environmental History
• History by Period
• Intellectual History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Psycholinguistics
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Religion
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Browse content in Law
• Criminal Law
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Palaeontology
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• History of Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Information and Communication Technologies
• Browse content in Economics
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Public Economics
• Browse content in Environment
• Climate Change
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Interdisciplinary Studies
• Browse content in Politics
• Asian Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Environmental Politics
• International Relations
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Economy
• Political Theory
• Public Policy
• Security Studies
• US Politics
• Browse content in Social Work
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Browse content in Sociology
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Sport and Leisure
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

10 Single-Sex Education, Pros and Cons

• Published: April 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter discusses how single-sex education is being deemed as a solution to the high attrition rates in U.S. public schools. Black and Hispanic students perform worse than whites; and students from under-resourced urban school districts perform worse than children from affluent suburban school districts. A number of self-styled educational gurus propose the separation of girls and boys and teaching them according to “their brains” to improve student performance, despite the gender gap being much smaller than racial and social class differences. The study Is Single Gender Schooling Viable in the Public Sector? Lessons From California's Pilot Project recognized that the single-sex setting eliminated social distractions and allowed for better concentration on academics. However, these benefits were undermined since gender stereotypes were often reinforced and stereotypical behaviors were worsened.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Look Into Education

Education leadership: the pros and cons of co-ed vs single-sex education.

September 16th, 2021

The interactions between girls and boys at school influence how women and men relate as equals in the workplace. This is part of the reason why advocates for coeducation say it is a way to socialize young people so they are better prepared for their futures in the workforce and society.

Coeducation and Curricula

Coeducation is the integrated education of males and females at schools and learning facilities. Coeducational schools reflect the diversity of society. Co-ed schools typically offer a curriculum that is accessible to all students and encourages a wide range of learning opportunities. By minimizing gender-linked stereotypes in coursework, educational opportunities can appeal to individuals’ interests, aptitudes, and motivations as opposed to categories like gender.

On the other hand, proponents of single-sex education say students can also flourish academically in single-gender classrooms. The National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE) asserts that schools that use best practices for gender-specific teaching may be more successful at teaching to boys’ and girls’ strengths.

Research shows the benefits and drawbacks of both models of education. In the past few decades, studies, including a comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools by the U.S. Department of Education, produced mixed results that are not conclusive enough to fully endorse either. Researchers on both sides of the debate continue to work and adapt to current education trends.

Benefits of Co-ed and Single-Gender Formats

Education leaders must evaluate both the merits and obstacles of the different learning environments. Here are common arguments for both coeducation and single-sex education. 

The Case for Co-ed

• Offers school diversity—students will find it easier to adapt in many different environments.
• Teaches equality and tolerance—co-ed schools treat students to be tolerant of each other.
• Promotes socialization—students enrolled in mixed classrooms experience being with members of the opposite sex and are comfortable interacting with each other.
• Prepares students for the real world—students are exposed to an environment that reflects the larger society.
• Improves communication skills—studying in co-ed schools can help an individual communicate in different ways.
• Challenges sexism—a co-ed environment gives students the chance to express themselves and share their views.

The Case for Single-Gender Education

• Lessons tailored to unique interests and skills—curricula in single-sex classrooms are developed without the influence of social expectations based on gender roles.
• Ease of forming relationships—camaraderie forms naturally without concerns about cliques and social status. 
• Minimizes distractions—students focus more on academics and extracurriculars.
• Removes double standard—girls and boys might be held to obviously different standards in co-ed environments but might not in single-sex schools.
• Breaking down gender stereotyping—students confidently pursue interests without the assumption of female- and male-dominated subjects.
• More relaxed environment—there is less of a desire to impress the other gender.

How Aspiring School Leaders Can Maximize Student Success The debate over coeducation vs single-gender education is just one of several educators are facing today. School leaders must incorporate changing attitudes to build effective educational models. William Woods University’s Online Education Specialist in Educational Leadership degree prepares individuals who are often already teachers to be leaders at the school-district level. This Education Specialist degree program features courses like Issues in School Superintendency, which examines the historical perspectives and issues that superintendents face—knowledge that can help educators maximize student success.

Related posts:

• The Importance of Building Media Literacy Skills
• Education Leaders on Teaching Climate Change

Posted in Curriculum Advances , School Leaders

No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Single-sex schools VS mixed-gender schools: comparing impacts

• November 2023
• Region - Educational Research and Reviews 5(4):11
• CC BY-NC 4.0
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Kâmil Khaskheli

• K. O. Nurgaliyeva

• Binod Neupane

• Özge Sakallı

• Tyrone C. Howard
• Audra K. Langley
• Nina Permata Sari
• Eklys Cheseda Makaria
• Rochgiyanti Rochgiyanti

• Kamilah Akilah Bywaters
• Acie T. Russell
• Jr. Joseph Simmons
• Tracy Griffin Spies
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• High School
• College Search
• College Admissions
• Financial Aid
• College Life

Pros and Cons of Single-Sex Education

Imagine a typical school classroom and you may conjure up images of boys and girls coexisting, learning alongside each other, raising their hands in equal numbers. However, that’s not usually the case.

According to 2010 data from NCES and the U.S. Census Bureau , from prekindergarten to senior year of high school, male students outnumber female students significantly in public school classrooms: 54 percent to 46 percent in pre-K and 51 percent to 49 percent from first grade to 12th grade.

So with the disproportionate stats in the American classroom, is it beneficial to separate the sexes from each other? Much debate has centered around this topic for years.

The Case for Single-Gender Classrooms

Jefferson Leadership Academies was in the spotlight in 1999 when it became the first public middle school in the United States to have entirely single-gender classes. Its reason? Research showed that girls did better in math and science in all-girl settings. This decision came just a few years after Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls  — a book that argues that gender bias prevents girls from receiving education equal to that of their male counterparts — was published by two American University professors.

Of course, single-gender education in grade schools didn’t start in 1999, as it existed in the 18th century before coeducation started to trend in the 19th century. However, it picked up steam in the late ’90s, especially when the Supreme Court made a ruling in the United States v. Virginia case involving male-only military college Virginia Military Institute . The conclusion: Single-sex classrooms were only constitutional if comparable resources were available to both genders. In 2006, the No Child Left Behind Act added a provision giving single-sex classrooms and schools the ability to exist as long as they are voluntary. From 1995 to 2006, the number of single-sex schools in the United States rose from 3 to 241.

There are many reasons why people advocate for single-gender classrooms, including less distraction (especially during teenage years when hormones rage), less “ gender intensification ” where coed settings reinforce stereotypes, and more instruction tailored to the unique ways boys and girls learn.

Approximately 30% of Catholic high schools in America are single-sex. See why you might consider a Catholic school, even if you’re not Catholic .

The Case Against Single-Gender Classrooms

In 2007, Jefferson Leadership Academies reversed its same-sex curriculum after issues with disappointing test scores and scheduling conflicts arose. Detractors of same-sex classrooms weren’t surprised since one of the biggest challenges to single-sex classrooms is the lack of concrete evidence that they boost achievement. As Margaret Talbot wrote in her 2012 New Yorker piece , “The evidence wasn’t very good then [the ’90s] for a gap between the genders’ learning styles so significant that it would mandate separate instruction, and it hasn’t gotten any better.”

Plus, another argument against single-gender schools is that the real world doesn’t afford a society where students can work with or interact with one gender over another. Thus, when it comes time for these students to head into the workforce, or even to college, they will face an adjustment period.

Related to college, one of the biggest reasons why single-gender classes popped up in the ’90s was to help women do better in the classroom, but recent statistics show that women attend college in larger numbers, outnumbering men by 14 percent.

In fact, girls are less likely than boys to be held back in American schools, too, so some argue that the effort put into helping girls in the classroom may be counterintuitive when the boys are the ones who aren’t doing as well.

The Bottom Line

It may seem like a new development in education, but single-sex education is actually a throwback to curriculum systems of yesteryear, from way back before the 19th century. The factor that’s changed is simply the reason behind the implementation, which may continue to evolve as new trends and legislation emerge. It remains to be proven whether single-sex classrooms are beneficial to students.

Author: Niche

Niche helps you discover the schools and neighborhoods that are right for you.

More Articles By Niche

As a parent, the thought of college expenses can be overwhelming, but with the right understanding and approach, paying for college can be manageable and less stressful for the whole family.

Every parent wants the best for their child, especially when it comes to their education. With so many different types of K-12 schools available, the task of selecting the right one can feel daunting — but we have a few pointers to make it easier for you. In this post, we’ll dive into the essential aspects you should consider to ensure your child has a school experience tailored to their unique needs and potential. 

Students and staff members at Interlochen Arts Academy weigh in on academics, dorm life, and more.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Single Gender Education. Here Are Few Points To Consider

Single-gender v/s co-ed schools - the debate has been going on for a long time. We help you decide which is the better choice for your child.

The scenes that you see in a single-gender school are different from those in co-ed schools, but the fun children have remains the same. Of course, there are pros and cons to every decision we make in life and that is why, as parents, we need to know the merits and drawbacks of the school we choose for our kids.

So, what exactly is a single-gender classroom? Imagine walking into a school and finding only girls or boys there. This is what a single-gender school looks like.

But, what was the reason behind setting up single-gender schools? Well, in the 19th century, in Western Europe, only boys were sent to school and girls were educated at home. However, in the USA, at the same time, the idea of sending girls to school was gaining ground. This resulted in the establishment of women's educational institutions. It took a few years longer for the first co-ed school to be inaugurated in Oberlin, Ohio. By the late 20th century, however, many schools that previously catered to a single-gender became co-educational.

Surprisingly, in contrast, women in ancient India enjoyed a high status and there were many women scholars of note. While the Rig Veda mentions the name of female poets, by 800 BCE there were a few women scholars mentioned in the Upanishads as well.

However, the education system in India, and elsewhere, went through several changes over the years and was witness to the popularity of co-ed schools, which mushroomed all over the country. Here, we give you a low-down on the advantages and disadvantages of single-gender schools.

ADVANTAGES OF SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS

Reduced distractions:.

With both genders under one roof, there are going to be distractions. The younger boys and girls often end up competing with each other, and older boys and girls getting involved with one another. A single-gender classroom eliminates these distractions in the classroom and children focus more on their studies.

Builds confidence:

While girls are good in some subjects, boys excel in others. When children study in a single-gender classroom, they interact much more confidently and freely and can discuss topics, which they would be otherwise hesitant about. Since all leadership positions are also held by peers of the same gender, children feel empowered and confident about tackling any job.

Eliminates competition between boys and girls:

The reason behind single-gender classrooms is the belief that girls and boys are different neurologically and learn very differently. According to a study 'How The Brain Learns: New And Exciting Findings' presented by Dr Sousa in 2014 ASAIHL Conference in Singapore, boys develop visual, spatial and temporal skills faster than girls and girls acquire spoken language skills faster than boys. In a single-gender school, girls get to explore their skills at their own pace without having to compete with boys and vice versa.

Adapts teaching methods:

While in a co-ed school, it is difficult to cater to everyone's needs, it is easier for teachers to prepare lessons suited to the learning needs of a single-gender class. Usually, boys understand more through physical activities while girls prefer interactions and discussions. According to a study 'With Boys And Girls In Mind' by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens published in Educational Leadership in 2004, classrooms based on gender promote different skills and make learning more relatable. The study states 'New PET scan and MRI technologies reveal structural and functional differences in the brains of boys and girls. With more cortical areas devoted to verbal functioning, sensual memory, sitting still, listening, tonality, and mental cross-talk, the complexities of reading and writing come easier to the female brain. Boys lateralize their thinking, need rest states to recharge, and use more cortical areas of their brains for spatial-mechanical functioning. Classrooms that help girls learn will promote gross motor skills, encourage perceptual learning, and use manipulatives to teach math. Boy-friendly classrooms will promote fine motor skills, provide ample space to move around, and make lessons experiential and kinesthetic'.

DISADVANTAGES OF SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS

Single-gender interactions:.

While single-gender classrooms provide a relaxed ambiance for children's interaction with their own gender, it is different in the real world, where boys and girls must interact and work with each other. When they are used to interacting only with one gender in school, the awkwardness and newness of the experience make it difficult for boys and girls to interact and converse with each other comfortably.

Creates gender stereotypes:

Studies have shown that single-gender classrooms foster gender stereotypes. Both genders start thinking they are better than the other. "There is strong evidence for negative consequences of segregating by sex -- the collateral damage of segregating by sex," said Lynn S Liben, Professor of Psychology, Human Development and Family Studies, and Education, Penn State in a report 'Sex segregation in schools detrimental to equality', published in Science Daily in 2011.

Lacks diversity:

In single-gender classrooms, the boys or girls do not have the opportunity to listen to perspectives and gain a broader understanding of each other.

Promotes gender disparity:

Single-gender classrooms or schools could make children feel they are superior to the other sex, and that promotes gender disparity. This attitude, in the long run, causes problems when they are working side by side.

"Children usually tend to be shy around each other or are just too curious about each other. In a co-ed, they might fight with each other, but they grow up knowing each other well. This is a healthy way of growing up," says Seetha Kiran, Regional Director, DAV Public School, Safilguda.

CHILD SPEAK

"When you are in an all-boys school, and especially for a long time like I have been, you tend to get shy around girls. It even gets awkward when you get into college, which is mostly co-ed. You don't know what to say or how to behave around the opposite gender. But yes, single-gender schools have their benefits too. There are no distractions and we don't get embarrassed when we are pulled up in class, because we don't feel so conscious."

Aditya Himatsingka,  studies in an all-boys boarding school in Bangalore

PARENT SPEAK:

"Both my boys go to an all-boys school. And I feel there are fewer distractions there. But, I have noticed they are shy around girls. They have certain notions about how girls behave, even though I have explained that that's not necessarily true."

"My daughter studies in an all-girls school and my son goes to a co-ed school. The advantage of a single-gender classroom as far as my daughter is concerned is that she does not need to mind herself all the time or be conscious about her actions as she is in an all-girls school."

Tasneem Aakbari-Kutubuddin 

Ultimately though, as parents, you will choose what you believe is best for your children. So, it is up to you to decide whether you want your children to study in a co-ed or a single-gender school. Your decision is going to shape their future, not just academically but also personally. So, choose wisely and keep an open mind.

EMC Feb 28, 2024

Ignorant garbage. South Asia has a long way to go. I feel sorry for the girls who have to be raised to believe that while they are, eh, good at some things, boys EXCEL.

Adara _ May 22, 2023

Same sex schools are far better then co educational schools specifically for girl students if safety is concern

Maisie Humphreys Mar 7, 2023

ban same-sex schools !!!!!!!

hiya loves 

See All Comments

Comment Flag

Abusive content

Inappropriate content

Cancel Update

Related Topics See All

More for you.

Explore more articles and videos on parenting

Pre-schooler to 18+ • 10 Mins Read • 133K Views

10 Important Life Lessons From The Bhagavad Gita For Kids And Parents

Understanding the essence of the Bhagavad Gita can inspire children and help them cultivate good values. Here's a list of ten timeless principles that children can learn from the Gita.

Primary to Teen • 6 Mins Read • 6.7K Views

Benefits Of Comics For Kids

Comic books benefit not only your child's learning skills but also spark their imagination and language development.

Pre-schooler to 18+ • 8 Mins Read • 52.4K Views

Be Inspired By The Teachings Of Swami Vivekananda With Some Of His Quotes For Students

Share the teachings and extraordinary qualities of the great spiritual leader with your child.

• Communities

Join a community to interact with like-minded parents and share your thoughts on parenting

2.5K members • 58 Discussions

Curiosity, tantrums and what not!

1.9K members • 48 Discussions

The Active and Enthusiastic Middle Years

11-18 Years

1.8K members • 69 Discussions

From Self-consciousness to Self-confidence

Just for Parents

4K members • 158 Discussions

A 'ME' space to just BE!

Discussions Topics

Share your thoughts, parenting tips, activity ideas and more

Hobbies and Entertainment

New member introduction.

Family Fun Challenges and Activities

• Gadget Free Hour
• Discussions

Share your thoughts, tips, activity ideas and more on parenting

Benefits of Vitamin C for your child

Do-it-yourself containers: a pretty way to reuse plastic containers, fun grammar games for your child.

A compilation of the most-read, liked and commented stories on parenting

A Career in Robotics

5 Mins Read • 1.4K Views

Best Education Systems In The World

12 Mins Read • 5.7K Views

Fun Grammar Games For Your Child That Are Not Only Entertaining But Engaging

4 Mins Read • 5.3K Views

International School: How Does It Benefit Your Child?

9 Mins Read • 7.3K Views

How To Teach Pronunciation To Your Child. Here Are 11 Pointers For Parents

7 Mins Read • 31.1K Views

BITSAT Exam Syllabus And Paper Pattern - 2020

42 Mins Read • 4.3K Views

Top Searches

• Notifications
• Saved Stories
• Parents of India
• Ask The Expert
• Community New
• Community Guideline
• Community Help
• The Dot Learning Circle
• Press Releases
• Terms of use
• Sign In Sign UP

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Are There Benefits For Attending A Single Sex School? Essay

Are there benefits to attending a single-sex school? “If you want your daughter to be a high-flying businesswoman or banker, send her to a single-sex school.” (The Guardian online) New research concludes consistency in relationship between gender and education styles. Single gender classes perform better when separated in their pre-teens. It is not only the religious aspect of education ; it is a proven fact that girls and boys learn differently. They have different physical and emotional needs to learn successfully. And where does the argument about single-gender schools stop? Should we educate races, religions and members of different social classes separately? For many years, in many cultures single gender schooling is advocated on the basis of tradition as well as religion, and is practiced in many parts of the world. Recently, there has been a great deal of evidence to suggest boys and girls behave and respond differently to learning styles. Supporters believe that single gender school aids student outcomes difficulties related to hormonal and emotional maturity. Enemies, however, doubt that the evidence for such effects students and instead stating that such segregation can cost students social and relationship skills. Nowadays, girls outperform boys in almost every academic subject. It is a very well-known fact that around the world today females out number males in graduating college. It is another evidence of research conclusions on how girls and boys are

Single-Sex Classrooms Are Not The Answer! Essay

• 8 Works Cited

An article that was written about a school in Texas stated that more than 50% of boys and girls in single-gender classrooms cause disruptions, and they bring their behavior from home into the classrooms at school. In an article, it stated that “in October of 2006, federal regulations established the requirements for legally permissible single-sex schools and classes within the public system; nearly 200 schools in South Carolina have single-gender classrooms” (“Single-Sex Education Spreads” 2). Teachers’ interest often drives the attention of students to single-gender classes, and growing interest from their parents is also pushing more schools and districts as they hear about these classrooms (“Single-Gender Classrooms” 2). While teachers and administrators prefer this environment, boys and girls in single-sex classrooms are influenced to distract and be distracted by their friends, and the people around them. They seem to doodle, daydream, and lose their thought in the classroom because of their surroundings. In a newspaper article, “Should Children Be Taught in Single-Sex Classrooms”, the author says pupils fail to develop relationships with the opposite sex if they are taught in a single-sex environment because they both tend to be drawn into conflict amongst each other, they are distracted by what others are doing in the classrooms, and they are not themselves because they are being forced into an unfamiliar environment they do not

Separate And Unequal Analysis

The programs that seperate the sexses in schools are usually based on very questionable science about the differences of girls’ and boys’ brains during development and learning, along with gender stereotypes. The American Civil Liberties Union’s article, ‘Sex-Segregated schools; Separate and Unequal’ says,” Advocates tell teachers that: Boys need a competitive and confrontational learning environment,

Disadvantages Of Single Sex Education

Single sex education, which is also known as single gender school is an old approach that’s is gaining new momentum. Single sex education consists of separating males and females into different classrooms or in separate buildings or schools. Advocates of single-sex education believe that there are persistent in how boys and girls learn and behave in educational settings such difference merit educating them separately. One version of this argument holds that brains of males and females develop differently. Proponents reference these developmental differences to argue that by separating students according to their sex, the educator is able to meet the needs according to the developmental trajectory of the different genders. In addition to that,

Does Gender Play a Role in Academic Success?

We all know the obvious difference in boys and girls. Typically, we associate boys with being rougher than girls and spending much of their time playing rambunctiously and getting dirty while most girls prefer to be subdued and tidy. But is that the only dissimilarity in gender? What about school work and academic performance along with academic success? Can gender be a predominating factor in determining a child’s IQ level? Is there a legitimate difference in boys and girls when determining academic ability? And, does gender help determine any level of academic success? Some might say that these are some pretty absurd questions but others who have taught both boys and girls in

Pros and Cons to Single-Sex Schools

Tom Carroll, the creator of Brighter Choice Charter Schools, in support of this proposition states that the key to success in education “ is to eliminate social distraction” which in elementary students he describes as “goofiness” and in older generations as “ the hormonal issues of attraction and sex and boys and girls being impressed with each other”(Meyer). Single-gender schools remove the mentioned hormonal issues and allow teachers and students to both focus on the subject without the usual distraction and complications that arise when both genders are present. In this way, students perform better when segregated by genders and achieve higher proficiency in subjects.

Persuasive Essay On Single-Sex Education

According to an article from (www.nea.org) “Male dominance in the classrooms may come as no surprise to advocates in single gender education who suggest that boys and girls are regularly treated differently in coeducational settings and that both boys and girls could both benefit from single-gender classrooms. Studies suggest that when boys are in single-gender classrooms, they are more successful in school and more likely to pursue a wide range of interests and activities”. Many would agree with this quote because they feel that males and females learn better and would be more successful separated due to no distractions in the classrooms while others might have different beliefs that both genders could be successful in the same classroom because of the contrasting opinions of others and that could be a big help in preparing them for the “real world” because they would know that everyone would have different opinions about situations that get discussed in a classroom and they would most likely know how to take criticism from both genders.

Single-Sex Schooling Causes Stereotyping and Legitimizes Institutional Sexism

• 13 Works Cited

There is a long history of single-sex schooling, in which males and females attend specific classes or schools only with members of their same sex. This separation of genders may be done for educational purposes or in combination with other factors, such as social interactions that occur between male and female students. There is some support for the idea that single-sex schooling can be beneficial, especially for outcomes related to academic achievement and more positive academic aspirations (Lee, 2008). Although, there are many benefits of children attending single-sex schools, evidence shows that sex segregation can also gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism (Kennedy, 2000).

Single Sex School Essay

Single sex schools have less distractions in class. I believe this because in a single sex environment boys do not feel the need to impress girls and girls would not have to downplay their strengths to impress boys. The first example to backup my point is a study by the Australian Council for Educational Research where they said “research indicates that single sex schools improve

Pros And Cons Of Same Sex Schools In Public Schools

Not only does single-sex education create negative transitions into society, but it has been shown to negatively affect boys health and maturity. There has been many studies that show that girls do in fact, have a positive influence on a boy’s maturity. Theoretically it would only be the same in single-sex classrooms. Girls in school, typically have much higher concentration and ability to understand the lesson being taught to them. When in an environment with girls, the boys are able to think in a different way than in an all boy class, because the girls focus in on different perspectives that a guy’s maturity level would not usually be able to comprehend (‘pros

Single Sex Schools Are Effective Or Ineffective

Single-sex schools have proven to be effective according to many researchers. Janice Streitmatter, a researcher, shows a research where students who attended single-sex schools always score higher in their exams than students who attend coed schools. In another research she explains the outcomes on

Single Sex Schools : Primary Schools

Single-sex schools, specifically primary schools, are more beneficial to students because they facilitate higher test scores, superior academic outcomes, and greater engagement in school activities. Parents and educators have debated since the early nineteenth century whether to educate students in single-sex or co-ed schools. Currents studies have shown that single-sex schools achieve higher in academic success. Students with higher academic success become adults with a brighter future that can benefit society.

The Pros And Cons Of Single Sex Education

Single sex schools would also increase the academic potential of students by eliminating the male dominated classroom and replacing it with a level playing field for males and females. Stated in the article “research

Pros And Cons Of Single-Gender Education

There are strong claims for and against single-gender education around the globe. Despite extensive research in developing effective teaching practices for boys and girls separately, there are fundamental similarities between meeting the educational needs of girls and boys. There are more commonalities between the two than there are dissimilarities. Boys and girls seem to elicit different kinds of teaching they need due to the constraints that social norms put on each gender. For countries with European roots in their culture, this is also true. Although certain sex-linked characteristics are biologically inherent, how one learns is not dependent on their gender. Both girls and boys are relational learners, educe the kinds of teaching they need and find greater meaning in lessons they find interesting. It is not what sex individuals are born as that dictates what kinds of teaching methods they require, but rather it is how they are designed by their environments that shape their needs. This is particularly true for girls; and even more so for girls of color.

Pros And Cons Of Single Sex Schools

Single sex schools are common within the fait schools and some schools who believe there association within their faith would work out better within a diverse atmosphere. Some believe that having single sex schools is a good idea because then boys would feel more concentrated with their school work instead of trying to impress or compete for the girls. Parents also believe that boys would participate more and be focus with their education if girls were not in the same class as them. As a result, single sex schools should be banned to give children the opportunity to gain a better education and interacting with the opposite sex. Teaching boys and girls in separate classrooms it’s an old approach in which has recently gained momentum. The reason being is some debate on the fact that it reduces boys’ and girls’ opportunities to work together, and reinforces sex stereotypes while others believe that single-sex schooling results in better academic outcomes. Although there has been multiple case studies to find some common ground or to see which one is more beneficial or affective the results fluctuates.

Single Sex And Co Educated Schools

Do people really expect for a child’s grades to improve at an instant? Psychological problems will begin to increase if students do not interact with the opposite sex. Students will lack the advantages of the co-educational elementary, middle, and high school experience. Society may claim a single sex school environment will completely help develop education for students, but they are wrong.

Related Topics

• Single-sex education

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Gender

Argumentative Essay On The Pros And Cons Of Single-Sex Schools

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Gender , Segregation , Students , Family , Development , Children , Education , School

Words: 2500

Published: 04/01/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Education is a conventional mode of receiving knowledge needed for people to pursue professional aspirations. What shape such aspirations are schools that narrow children’s scope of interests, determine the areas of expertise and, most importantly, provide with knowledge. To make school environment better in terms of efficiency, school officials came to introduce class differentiation years ago. The system of single-class schools had not regained its popularity with American parents until 2000s. On paper, single class schools handle the problem of bullying, however, not necessarily. Better school performance and mental skills development are believed to be the case in such schools in spite of possible criticism. Overall, school students achieve better results though the instrumentality of gender separation; however, there are a variety of disadvantages not be counted away. Novotney (58) notes that since “No Child Left Behind” Act being signed into law back in 2002, the popularity of single-sex education has been on the rise. This piece of legislation made it possible for regional educational agencies to apply the funds of the so-called “Innovative Programs” for lending support to same-gender classrooms and schools in line with the existing legislation. The US Department of education, in turn, reduced restrictions on single-sex education by easing its Title 9 regulation in 2006. As of today, there are a total of 95 single-sex public schools, as per NASSPE, or the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, with as many as 445 public coeducational schools offering single-sex classrooms. According to Leonard Sax, philosophy doctor and NASSPE executive director, it is not that separating boys and girls grants success; it is that such schools take advantage of gender-specific teaching methods instrumental in identifying boys’ and girl’s merits and strengths. Such mode of education is popular, not but that a good number of experts are inclined to believe that single-sex class success originates in both the focus on extracurricular activities and a demanding curriculum irrespective of whether or not the opposite sex was present (Novotney 58). Anyway, parents ought to think long and hard before making the decision of sending their children to single-sex schools, as there are clear arguments and counterarguments of doing so. The proponents of single-sex education insist on brain difference being one of key rationales for class separation. A longitudinal pediatric neuroimaging study from 2007 conducted by neuroscientist team from the National Institute of Mental Health have concluded that different brain areas tend to develop in a different tempo and sequence in girls as compared to boys. The occipital lobe linked to visual processing shows the signs of development in girls aged between 6 and 10 years, whereas boys have the region cells grow until after they turn 14 years of age (Novotney 58). With that in mid, the expert points to the brain properties of girls developing at a much faster pace as opposed to boys, which rationalizes class separation, as girls require exercises developing these areas of brain much earlier than boys do. Hence, class segregation creates opportunities for a more harmonious development of school students based on the principle of organism maturation, so to speak. Novotney (58) goes on to note that studies on gender language divergence have demonstrated that three-year-old girls’ language processing far outpaces that of five-year-old boys. It is safe to assume that, in dividing classes on the basis of gender, educators are afforded the ample opportunity of employing language-based exercises, with the members of the same sex in class. Thus, the value of such exercises will be proportionally distributed among all the students, bar none, more importantly, students whose brain has matured enough to apprehend information. Parker and Rennie (n.p.) admit that teachers may employ not only instructional techniques, but also exercises that boys believe more exciting, which will activate their attention and information apprehension (qtd. in Briegel 6). NASSPE (n.p.), Parker and Rennie (n.p.), Warrington and Younger (n.p.) are convinced that class separation allows educators to use whatever technique necessary, without having to alternate one method with the other (qtd. in Briegel 6). According to Novotney (58), psychologist and philosophy doctor, Lisa Darmour claims same sex classes to enable teachers to apply strategies inapplicable in coeducational classes. To quote an example, boys are good at math courses while girls show shows shades of doubt, when dealing with difficult math-related material, as per Carol Dweck, philosophy doctor and Stanford University psychologist. It is worth noting that Lee and Bryk (387-388) observations are indicative of single-sex schools girls’ and boys’ performing more homework for their classes, as compared with their unisex school counterparts. In addition, boys from single-sex classes were more willing to join science and mathematics courses than their peers from schools for both sexes were (qtd. in Briegel 7). Unlike their coeducational-class peers, girls from single-sex classes, according to Gillibrand, Robinson, Brawn, and Osborn (356), show abiding faith in their physics knowledge, which leads them to join respective courses and score high test results. Girls, in their turn, appear hesitant and less willing to become actively involved in laboratories in unisex classes, with boys more superior to them in physics (qtd. in Briegel 7). Riordan (n.p.) notes that, of both sexes, girls appear to benefit more from a single-sex education mode. Boys and girls, whether from Catholic or public high schools, far outclassed their peers from unisex schools in math scores (Streitmatter 37). To overcome complexes, to deal with gender and inferiority stereotypes, and to strengthen students’ educational determination is what single-sex system is all about. Parker and Rennie (n.p.) claim single-sex classes to enhance internal cooperation and make student-to-student interaction more respectful in all-girl classes. Lisa Darmour believes that one-sex schools help students concentrate more on studies rather than opposite sex peers, they feel affection towards and try to put it on display (Novotney 58). Lee and Bryk (n.p.) also agree on the point that opposite gender no longer poses distraction in single-sex classrooms, with student contingent composed of peers supportive of other children’s comments and ideas. Interestingly, once in such educational environments, girls fall to pursuing the so-called male-dominated disciplines, such as the sciences, mathematics, and the industrial arts (qtd. in Briegel 5). According to Warrington and Younger (n.p.), when in single-sex environment, boys may go all the way to taking academic risks since getting ashamed is far easier to take in the group of males than if it were in a unisex classroom (qtd. in Briegel 6). Zero girls’ presence may incite boys to assume role they perceive as being masculine. Whatever advantages, class segregation has plenty of negative implications and consequences in it. According to Novotney (58), coed proponents and researchers report classroom segregation to result in a greater gender discrimination, whether it be at school or in classroom. Students were also reported to have problems dealing with the opposite sex in their later life. Schools are the preparation for adult life, as per Diane Halpern, APA ex-president, that is to say, it is exactly at school that boys and girls learn how to cooperate with each other. While in the workplace, they are sure to have issues of interaction with opposite sex colleagues, without having this type of experience at school. Halpern, Eliot, Bigler, Fabes, Hanish, Hyde, Liben, and Martin (1707) suggest that, apart from decreasing boys’ and girls’ opportunities of working together, separation causes them to spend the minimum amount of time with opposite sex peers. Boys’ spending more time with other boys grow aggressive and develop behavioral problems with time, which does not allow them to assume a wider range of attitudes and behaviors (Halpern, et a. 1707). A study conducted by Doctor Lynn Liben and her graduate student, Lacey Hilliard showed that class segregation contributed to stereotypical attitude increase, which was in inverse proportion to the interest of playing with opposite sex peers (Novotney 58). Children come developing gender stereotypes in environment where gender division is explicit, which has the potential of causing interpersonal relationship issues at some point in the future. Education equity director with the Feminist Majority Foundation, Sue Klein suggests that class division produces inequality; what is more, plenty of single-sex classrooms and schools overstate and induce sex stereotypes by putting focus on aggression and rivalry among boys and inactivity among girls by means of setting expectations about boys’ not being good at writing. According to Halpern, Eliot, Bigler, Fabes, Hanish, Hyde, Liben, and Martin (1707), some scientists insist as if class segregation eliminated sexism, or gender stereotypes suggesting men’s superiority over women. Children start regarding sex as a core human attribute as well as developing strong intergroup biases. Novotney (58) admits that the biggest problem is that a good many educational problems sex-separated public educational programs are illicit inasmuch as they do not provide parents with a coed choice for children. More importantly than that, schools officials do not display the interconnection between single-sex program and educational goal (Novotney 58). According to Bailey (n.p.), single-sex schools blight the decades of anti-segregation civil movements and sex-related discrimination cessation attempts. In Arlington Community High School and a number of other educational establishments, educators have come to separate students in lunchrooms, hallways, and even school buses while other schools have established separate classes for both sexes in physics and algebra. Not only does deepen the once battled sex-based societal segregation, but it also creates judicial collision. To put an example, it was because of segregation that West Virginia middle school program controversy required hearing and settlement in court. The program imposed different expectations of girls as well as boys, with the latter permitted plenty of moving about and the former ordered to sit quietly. Overall, far from yielding no results due to, segregation is the sources of many long-term problems (Bailey n.p.). Clearly, it is no good telling some students, for example, that they are excellent at subjects other than exact sciences by virtue of gender stipulated laws. Such an imposed attitude will most likely live a mark on the vision of their future profession. Studies conducted by neuroscientists, and legal scholars have proved that segregation based on sex boosts discrimination and helps children develop sex stereotypes that are prerequisite to them engaging in drug abuse, unprotected sex, and aggression. Newly converted schools often force students unwilling to attend unisex classes into transferring to lower-quality schools. Worse, single-sex schools are an expensive educational option. With that in mind, there should be more affordable coed alternatives to such schools without the shortage of experienced educators, better athletic opportunities, and more afterschool options, and what distinguish single-sex schools from unisex establishments are these three options (Bailey n.p.). Conley (n.p.) also puts focus on the possibility of children’s developing gender stereotypes, which is among one of the most negative outcomes of unisex learning mode. Halpern, Eliot, Bigler, Fabes, Hanish, Hyde, Liben, and Martin (1706) claim that gender distinction is of huge academic value to students; however, such statement may have no scientifically proved grounds. Students already have a higher academic level on entering single-sex schools and had better test scores one year prior to being admitted. In other words, academic successes are mostly anyone else’s merit but that of SS schools. This is not all there is to it since underachieving students tend to transfer out prematurely, which inflates performance results. Exist as successful single-sex schools might, there is no evidence that their organization, a demanding curriculum, and other aspects boost students’ academic performance. If truth be told, the supposedly axiomatic concept of brain difference central to single-sex educational principle does not seem to stand to criticism since neuroscientists have hardly found any differences save for boys’ brain larger volume and girls’ brain cells earlier growth completion, of which neither bears relation to learning and academic success. Nor is the argument of both sexes having different autonomic nervous system function scientifically correct (Halpern, et al. 1707). Strain (29) states that, despite a well-developed stereotype of performance academic improvement, SS math classes damage students’ end-of-grade scores of mathematics and reading tests. Finally, according to Taylor (n.p.), studies have demonstrated that children from single-sex schools are no different than their counterparts who stem from unisex schools, which refutes the popular belief, based on which unisex schools and classes provide children with knowledge needed for them to master STEM or science, technology, engineering, and math subjects. Conley (n.p.) also insists that there are distinctions between single-sex schools students and their peers from conventional unisex schools in terms of knowledge an academic success. Such children are far more likely to join subject courses than their peers from unisex schools are. However, single-sex schools are also said to produce stereotypes and be the source of sexism. Children from such classes will likely have problems socializing with opposite sex counterparts while in the workplace. Plenty of scientists claim students from separated classes to show the exact same academic performance as their peers from unisex classes do. Attitudinal, behavioral problems, substance abuse, unprotected sex, and aggression are possible fallouts of single-sex education. That being said, it is highly doubtful that such approach to plying school students with knowledge should be applied very carefully, if at all since there are plenty of weighty arguments against it.

Works Cited

Bailey, Susan Mcgee. "Failing Our Kids: Despite Pseudoscience to the Contrary, Sex Segregation in Public Schools Creates Problems—Not Solutions" Ms. Magazine. Fall 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Briegel, J. Rolf. “Study to Determine if the Benefits of Single-sex Schools or Single-sex Classes Apply to Single-sex groups within a Coeducational High School Science Classroom.” MA thesis. California University of Pennsylvania, 2008. 1-63. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Conley, Mikaela. "Single-Sex Schools Have Negative Impact on Kids, Says Study." ABC News. 22 Sept. 2011. n.p. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. Halpern, Diane F., Eliot, Lise, Bigler, Rebecca S., Fabes, Richard A., Hanish, Laura D., Hyde, Janet, Liben, Lynn S., and Carol Lynn Martin. "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling." Science 333.6050 (23 Sept. 2011): 1706-707. Web.Science.23 Mar. 2013. Novotney, Amy. “Coed versus single-sex ed.” American Psychological Association. 42.2 (2011): 58. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Strain, Michael R. "Single-Sex Classes & Student Outcomes: Evidence from North Carolina." Economics of Education Review 36 (Oct. 2013): 1-46. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Streitmatter, Janice, L. “For Girls Only. Making a Case for Single-Sex Schooling.” State University of New York Press. 1999. 1-153. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Taylor, Marisa. "Study: Single-Sex Education offers No Benefits." Aljazeera America. Al Jazeera America, LLC, 5 Feb 2014. n.p. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2279

This paper is created by writer with

ID 286879310

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Dementia case studies, gardening case studies, insomnia case studies, animation case studies, camping case studies, apathy case studies, translation case studies, garden case studies, qualitative analysis reports, humanitarian book reviews, psychopathy book reviews, embargo book reviews, independent case studies, income case studies, contents case studies, discomfort case studies, immune case studies, item case studies, populace case studies, example of research paper on the european union membership of czech republic, review of angela mcrobbies article titled essay example, prenatal and postpartum scenario essay, interviews with physical and health impairments educators research paper, latin american liberation theology essay examples, business and society writing research paper examples, free research paper on bond and share valuations, essay on reading analysis, essay on concept paper, free term paper on lodging manager, example of critical thinking on housing and consumer law, example of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder course work, answers to astronomy assignment questions course work example, diction essays, gliding essays, slang essays, valence essays, pony essays, orchid essays, charm essays, tenth essays, schechter essays, oswego essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

What are the benefits and drawbacks of Single-Sex Education?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• lifelong education
• continual learning
• changing technologies
• societal norms
• cognitive function
• cognitive decline
• personal development
• self-improvement
• formal education
• contentment
• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Some university students want to learn about other subjects in addition to their main subjects. Others believe it is more important to give all their and attention to studying for qualification. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The internet has dramatically altered our lives over the past few decades. although some of these changes have been negative, the overall effect of this technology has been positive. what are your opinions on this, 65.some people think governments should spend money in looking for life on other planets, while others think that here are many unsolved problems on earth. discuss both views and give your opinion, some businesses find that their new employees lack basic interpersonal skills such as cooperative skill. what are the causes and suggest possible solutions., the government should ban smoking in all public places even though this would restrict some other people’s freedomdo you agree or disagree.